Global Fund Suspends All Uganda Grants
--------------------------------------
Reproduced from the Global Fund Observer Newsletter
(http://www.aidspan.org/gfo), a service of Aidspan.
The Global Fund has temporarily suspended all five of its grants
to Uganda, after learning of "serious mismanagement of the
grants" by the unit within the Ministry of Health that was set
up to administer them.
COMMENTARY: Lessons from the Uganda Experience
by Bernard Rivers (mailto:rivers@aidspan.org) Executive Director
of Aidspan and Editor of its Global Fund Observer.
I would not want Brad Herbert's job.
He and his team of a few dozen people at the Global Fund have to
negotiate hundreds of grant agreements, disburse billions of
dollars, and then attempt to ensure that the grants deliver the
promised results with no inappropriate diversions of money.
The Global Fund money attracts wonderful people and organiza-
tions who do amazing things with it; but it also attracts some
people who have other objectives in mind. To assume otherwise
would be na�ve in the extreme. Equally na�ve would be to assume
that because some apparent corruption has been uncovered, this
proves that there is a fundamental problem with the Global Fund
process.
How many other bilateral or multilateral organizations would
launch an intensive investigation within days of receiving a
credible report from a whistleblower, and then initiate decisive
remedial action, and publicly announce it, as soon as the prob-
lems were confirmed? Most would first spend some time wishing
the problem would go away, and would only then, reluctantly and
slowly, look into things further, treating the whole matter as
highly confidential.
The Global Fund is to be congratulated for its courage in han-
dling the Uganda problem in a direct and transparent manner.
And the Uganda Minister of Health is to be congratulated for
agreeing to sit down with Brad Herbert on Tuesday and work out
how best to proceed.
Having said that, the recent developments in Uganda show the
need for some significant changes in Global Fund procedures.
First, the Global Fund should establish a mechanism that encour-
ages other whistleblowers to report their concerns. (While GFO
welcomes information from future whistleblowers, it is only the
Fund that can fully investigate their charges.)
Second, the Fund should write to every PR and every sub-
recipient, letting them know about the actions that it will take
if corruption is confirmed, or even strongly suspected.
Third, the Fund should set up a procedure that has a good chance
of detecting corruption even if no whistleblowers come forth.
Stricter audits should automatically be carried out with every
Principal Recipient and sub-recipient. If the results of that
audit raise some concerns, a much more thorough audit should
automatically be triggered. This will not be inexpensive. If
donors to the Fund want to be sure that none of their money is
wasted, they have to allow more of their money to be spent on
auditing.
The Fund must find ways to make it less likely that corruption
will occur, and more likely that corruption is detected when it
does occur.